Quality of work life (QWL) is now recognized as a significant issue, and numerous studies have been conducted on the subject (1, 2). These studies explore the relationship between QWL and various organizational outcomes, and found significant relationship between job performance and quality of working life in all the aspects. QWL refers to the degree to which employees contribute to the organization’s goals while also experiencing personal and professional satisfaction (3). The nurses make up the largest and most diverse segment of the healthcare workforce (2, 4, 5). Nurses’ QWL is the level to which licensed nurses are able to meet significant personal demands as a result of their experiences at work while meeting organizational standards (6). The idea of worker satisfaction is increasingly crucial since workers feel at ease in environments where they must be appreciated, valued, and recognized (4, 7, 8).

The quality of nursing work life (QNWL) comprises factors like job security, job description, nursing development plans as measurements, relationships with coworkers, wages, and job satisfaction (9). Previous studies have demonstrated the significance of QNWL assessment (10, 11). Nevertheless, some studies have found that nurses have high levels of job dissatisfaction, burnout, and resignation intent (11, 12) and enhancing their QWL has become a difficult challenge in the healthcare system since the 1970s (13). One of the issues that influences the provision of the best nursing care is the need to keep and recruit nurses (14). It’s essential for healthcare organizations to address the specific challenges and concerns that nurses may be facing. Improving QNWL can lead to better job satisfaction, increased retention rates, and enhanced patient care.

Increasing nursing heavy workload and widespread shortages are now major global problems (15–17). In Jordan the majority of nurses reported that there were not enough nurses in the workplace and that their task was heavy. As a result, nurses failed to provide patients with high-quality care since they were not satisfied with their jobs (18). Despite receiving education and training to provide patients with high-quality nursing care, nurses’ working environments and interference with their personal needs remain neglected (19). According to a recent scoping review study (20), improvements to the working environment conditions at all management levels should be made. Therefore, it should be taken into account to perform regular evaluations and assessments for factors impacting nurses’ QWL and the work environment.

Many studies have explored many factors that influence QNWL, including sociodemographic and work-related variables (21–24). The most important sociodemographic characteristics associated with QNWL were gender, educational attainment, and marital status (2, 5, 21, 25). On the other side, QNWL is influenced by aspects relating to the workplace, such as attitude, opportunity, job characteristics, stress levels, career possibilities, difficulties faced, room for growth and development, risks involved, and rewards (4, 26, 27). An earlier study in Jordan found no significant relationship between QNWL scores and all the sociodemographic and work-related variables (18). However, the fact that it was the only study that investigated QNWL in Jordan indicates that more research is necessary. The current study’s objective is to evaluate the QNWL level and its associated factors among nurses working in critical care units (CCUs) in Jordan.

The descriptive characteristics of the study participants are shown in Table 1. The study involved 250 nurses, with a mean age of 33.14 (SD = 4.61) and a mean BMI of 2.49 (SD = 0.58). In this study, there are exactly as many males as females (125 males and 125 females). Of the total participants, 149 (59.6%) were married, and 144 (57.6%) were nonsmokers. The majority of participants (88.0%, n = 220) have a bachelor’s degree and work shifts (89.2%, n = 223). More than half of the participants (52.8%, n = 132) worked an 8-h shift. The majority of the participants (75.6%, n = 189) reported being exposed to occupational noise, with equipment being the most commonly reported source of noise (28.4%, n = 71). Additionally, the majority of the nurses (31.2%, n = 78) reported fair QNWL.

Table 2 presents the mean score of the QNWL and all six components. In this study, the total mean scores of QNWL were M = 86.17 (SD = 35.12), which is slightly below the expected middle value (87.5). The nurses have a higher psychological relation, M = 18.28 (SD = 8.99), whereas they have the lowest competence development, M = 11.44 (SD = 5.56).

Table 3 shows that three variables (i.e., workplace noise, workplace source of noise, and sleep quality) were retained in the final model and therefore considered significant predictors of QNWL. For workplace noise, those who reported no were 3.7 times more likely to have a good QNWL than those who reported yes (AOR = 3.67, p = 0.005). For the source of workplace noise, the increase in mortality in units’ sources was 67% less likely to have good QNWL than the equipment source (AOR = 0.33, p = 0.021), and visitors sources were 53% less likely to have good QNWL than the equipment source (AOR = 0.47, p = 0.171). Those with good quality sleep were about 25 times more likely to have good QNWL than those with poor sleep quality (AOR = 25.31, p < 0.001).

The present study aimed to investigate the quality of nursing work life (QNWL) and its related factors in public, private, and educational hospitals in Jordan. One of the essential findings of the present study was that the majority of the nurses (31.2%) reported fair QNWL, with only a few (4.4%) reporting high QNWL. This is consistent with the findings of a previous study among Iranian nurses, which showed that 61.4% of participants believed that their QNWL was at a low-to-moderate level and only 3.6% reported their QNWL to be high (32). However, a previous study among Jordanian nurses revealed that the participants had moderate QNWL 18. Furthermore, a number of studies have produced contradictory findings about nurses’ QWL. For instance, Lee, Dai, stated that nurses in Taiwanese hospitals had an average level of QNWL (33). On the other side, Hesam, Asayesh study findings showed that the majority of nurses working in hospitals at Gorgan University of Medical Sciences had higher-than-average and desirable levels of QNWL satisfaction (34). In contrast another research in Saudi Arabia, revealed that the majority of nurses had poor QNWL balance (35). The varying working environments in various hospitals may be one of the possible sources of these contradictory findings (5, 36).

Nurses in the current study had mean values for the components of psychological relationships, work satisfaction, competence development, and security or insecurity that were all slightly below the expected middle values. This indicates that the nurses possess fair QNWL regarding these components. According to the earlier research conducted by Suleiman, among Jordian nurses, nurses claimed that their workload was excessive and that there were not enough nurses in the workplace when it came to the work design component (18). The majority of nurses believed they did not deliver high-quality patient care and were not satisfied with their work. These findings were supported by previous studies (5, 21, 26). In addition, earlier research revealed that few nurses felt appreciated by senior management and were able to participate in decisions, which is similar to the findings of the current study (21, 37). Furthermore, Almalki, FitzGerald, reported that the skill mix in nurse work environments was frequently insufficient and that there were few prospects for career progression (32).

With regards to the other components of QNWL, including commitment, openness, and closeness, the nurses had mean values of QNWL above the middle value. This demonstrates the strong devotion to their jobs and good working relationships among the nurses in the current study. According to another study, the organizational commitment of nurses was generally high, with just 18.9% of respondents rating it as low (32). According to researchers, organizational commitment is a multifaceted factor that promotes productivity (38). The results of the earlier studies reported that nurses’ productivity was at an average level (32, 39). Additionally, prior studies have shown that nurses experience a sense of belonging at work, work in a team, feel appreciated by doctors, can connect with the other therapists on the unit, and receive feedback from the nurse management regarding their performance (18, 26).

There was not a statistically significant association between the QNWL and all of the sociodemographic variables in the current study. The findings are in line with those of an earlier study among Jordanian nurses that discovered no statistically significant associations between QNWL and sociodemographic factors such as gender, marital status, and level of education (18). However, some studies have found that age and marital status can significantly influence QNWL (2, 40).

The results of the current study revealed that workplace noise, workplace source of noise, and quality of sleep had a significant effect on QNWL. The most important predictor of good QNWL is sleep quality. These results indicate that better sleep quality and a quiet working environment promote better QNWL. According to the findings of a Momeni, Shafipour, nurses with better sleep quality had higher mean QNWL ratings than nurses with poorer sleep quality (41). Their findings indicate a significant association between QNWL and sleep quality, with better QNWL associated with better sleep. Furthermore, research studies indicate an association between workplace hazards, such as noise, ergonomics, and stress, and hospital employees’ perceptions of a low or moderate quality of work life (42–44). In this regard, the improvement of working processes involving productivity, quality, service delivery, safety, employee morale, and cost control could improve healthcare work environment standards (45–48).

The present study is not without limitations. First, uncontrollable factors apart from the study variables, such as daily schedules and personal habits, may affect the nurse’s QWL. Second, it is important to apply caution when extrapolating the results of this study because the sample was not chosen at random but rather using a convenience sampling approach. Given that the study was cross-sectional in nature, it was difficult to draw conclusions regarding cause-and-effect relationships. The sample was limited to CCU nurses only; therefore, it appears that there were some limitations on sample selection. Also, due to sampling bias, many different nurses might have been overlooked as a result.

The aim of the current study was to examine QNWL and its influencing factors among Jordanian nurses working in CCUs. According to the study’s findings, the majority of Jordanian nurses working in CCUs reported having a fair QNWL. Additionally, the study reveals that QNLW can be promoted by good-quality sleep and a peaceful working environment. Therefore, in order to raise the quality of life for nurses, organizations and administrators should pay attention to these factors.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The studies involving humans were approved by The Jordanian Al-Zaytoonah University gave the approval for the study with IRB No. (1269312080). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s), and minor(s)’ legal guardian/next of kin, for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

MA: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SA-M: Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KA-M: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IO: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SA: Resources, Writing – original draft. SF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.